Light Infantry vs. Mechanized Infantry - Page 2

That would be great if all conflicts were low intensity insurgencies. Militaries have to find some kind of middle ground in order be halfway effective in every spectrum of operations. That was one of the problems during Vietnam. We were geared for a high intensity war against the USSR. We applied that mentality to the a low intensity conflict and it made things much harder for us when it came to fighting the Vietnamese...Still the US military could not afford to totally re-organize their military to fight a low intensity conflict with the Vietnamese because the elephant in the room (and the primary focus of the US military) was to hold the line against the Soviets if they decided to come across the Fulda gap. A low intensity focused American military would have easily been beaten by a High intensity trained and equipped Soviet Army because the Soviet Army would have had A LOT more fire power than us. So, where does that leave us?...Between a rock and a hard place.

Same rule applies today. Our militaries have geared our training and equipping towards more of a middle ground with the integration of Light and Stryker Brigades into every division of the US Army. We HAVE gotten lighter in response to the insurgency type warfare we are fighting. We have also integrated A LOT of COIST/COIN operations training into our military because we DO realize that it's not all about going out and killing the enemy. Yet we still have to maintain a training regimen to deal with a high intensity conflict because we will not be in these types of conflict forever. For instance, if North Korea ever decides to to cross the DMZ, we will need the heavy, highly powerful, highly manueverable formations to deal with that threat. A light infantry Army could not defend against the highly mechanized military force....

December 13th, 2010

LeMask

Well, the military are at the image of the people they represent.

We have more riches when it comes to hardware, but when it comes to manpower, we are poor countries.

The military provide equipment and the skills to operate this equipment. The standards in this domain are very high.
But what about the moral grounds? What about the "human" ground?

And I dont know if you can notice that, but what you said says more about YOU than about the situation we had in Vietnam of the possible conflicts that might appear in North Korea.

We are only the products of our society after all. And it's very American to think like that... The fear of the evil communists that might invade the world, and the need to prepare a few to fight the many... AT ALL COSTS.

And in walking down that path, they turn it into a reality... They support evil regimes and anger all the honest people living in the area. And then, they keep supporting these regimes to keep the populations in check...

And when you tell them "why do you need all this firepower? Do you want to destroy the whole planet?" , then they answer "Well, the whole planet doesnt like us, so we need big weapons, and big factories to build these big weapons, and tons of resources to fuel these big factories, and tons of tricks and corrupt buddies to get these resources cheap..." and it goes on and on on...

Think about the Iranians who say that they want the nuclear bomb as it's against their moral values (a weapon that kills without discrimination).
And these guys, if they had to see life (not the world) like you, they would be doing miracles to get a nuclear bomb... Because they have a lot of powerful enemies...

I'm here questioning a school of thought... Remember that US president at the end of WWII when he was warning the world about the military-industrial complex?

December 13th, 2010

brinktk

I think you are mis-understanding the point I'm trying to make.

The point I was trying to make is that we have to be ready for the worst case scenerio. This goes back to the disagreements we have had on how soldiers and planners have to see the world. In order to remain flexible we have to prepare for the worst. We cannot afford to be super idealistic when it comes to training and planning because history tells us that nothing EVER goes according to plan...especially in combat.

Light fighters have their place on the battlefield because they can go into places that the heavy units can't. If they weren't necessary then we would have done away with them a long time ago.

Heavy fighters too have their place because they can manuever and take on the most powerful enemy formations.

Having the capabilty to strike anywhere decisively has avoided far more wars for us than they have created.

--

December 13th, 2010

I3BrigPvSk

Hello guys,

in my opinion, the light infantry is suited for terrain there mech forces cannot operate. During the cold war, the majority of the Swedish infantry was a light infantry. We also trained for what we called "the free war." We could not fight the USSR head on, we were not so many to do that. We copy the Finnish army from their two wars with the Russians, and later even copy the North Vietnamese army. If the cold war had been hot, we had fought against any invader with the free war. Hit and run, disappear into the forests after any engagement. I think its also one of the reasons for why Sweden produce quite good anti-tank weapons. The Carl-Gustav, the AT-4, etc. During the 1980s in Sweden, the ground forces suffered a lot, becouse the air force needed a new plane, so all resources went to the air force (JAS-39 Gripen) The Swedish infantry of today is more a mech force, or well armed police force.

take care

Ghostrider

December 13th, 2010

nakser

The way i look at it, when you are rolling in afghanistan for instance, as infantry in the LAV III (Canadians), your basically a rolling target for rpgs and IDE's. I was told that the light infantry mostly take care of the work in the mountains, not sure if this is true though.

December 13th, 2010

LeMask

Well, that part was obvious...
If it's just the strong points of every type of units, it's child's play.

It's obvious that a tank can reach a mountain and that soldier on foot can go virtually anywhere...

And i was speaking about a whole other level of flexibility. The question is "is our military forces capable of thinking outside the box?"

I believe that we have enough skilled people to tell us how to fight. the questions we have to answer are "why should we fight?" and "who should we be fighting?"

When it comes to flexibility in battle etc... I trust you guys to do the right choice, no doubt about it.

And Nakser, can you push your logic a little further?
LAV III are like rolling targets. Alright. That's from a military point of view. But what about the political point of view?
You are an Afghan, you see an LAV III. What do you see? A rolling target + what?

The way i look at it, when you are rolling in afghanistan for instance, as infantry in the LAV III (Canadians), your basically a rolling target for rpgs and IDE's. I was told that the light infantry mostly take care of the work in the mountains, not sure if this is true though.

Yes that is one of the cons of being mounted, you are big fat juicy target. And that is right about groundpounders fighting in the mountains. Each element has its own lane that it excels in. Mounted is not any better then dismounted, they both have their pros and cons. I have served as both mounted and dismounted, I prefer to ride. The topic isn't about whats better, its about what you prefer.

December 17th, 2010

brinktk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Z

Yes that is one of the cons of being mounted, you are big fat juicy target. And that is right about groundpounders fighting in the mountains. Each element has its own lane that it excels in. Mounted is not any better then dismounted, they both have their pros and cons. I have served as both mounted and dismounted, I prefer to ride. The topic isn't about whats better, its about what you prefer.

That's my sentiment...
"If you can't truck it, F*** IT!"

December 17th, 2010

Partisan

This is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Light Infantry is configured for certain roles, Mech Inf is configured for certain roles. They are complementary in those roles

They each have the equipment, and hopefully the trg to fulfill those roles.

Which one is preferable to serve in - it depends on the man / woman.

Either way both kick arse.

December 18th, 2010

Korean Seaboy

My opinion is that in rocky terrain, mechs are often broken so that light would be better. More "stable" in my opinion.
However, in flat terrain, the mechs are the best. Faster, more powerful, etc...
A perfect example would be WWII
The Blitzkrieg laid waste to the flats in Western Europe, and some parts of Russia where the land was perfect for mech operations. However, in Italy and North Africa, light would be more preferable, so the Germans hadn't had much success.